By Johnnie Sloan - Sovereign Grace
Baptist Church of Modesto
|
Before reading further, it is absolutely
necessary that you prepare yourself with these opening questions and/or
comments. If you skip them and come to
erroneous conclusions of our stance on any of the following points it will not
be because you weren’t given fair warning.
Without answering the following questions and internalizing the
comments intently, one might only see a divisive or critical assessment of
this fast-growing movement. This is
not our intent whatsoever. So please
take note of the following. (1)
The purpose of this paper is to note differences with what we believe
to be crucial matters of Doctrine between our statements of faith (beliefs)
and that of the overall Calvary Chapel (CC) movement. And this is not to be divisive so much as
it is to inform those who would like to know what there might be in the way
of difference. You should know what a
church’s stance is on these matters if you are considering attending. Ours or theirs. (2)
Are you prepared to let Scripture be the final authority of your
conclusions in these matters? This
will be very important as some if not all of these differences hinge directly
on Scripture and its proper interpretation. (3)
Will we agree at the conclusion of this discourse not to be critical
for its own sake and seek open communication and understanding with those who
might differ in opinion? Again this is
for either side of the discussion. We
must be light seekers and not fight seekers.
It should be understood that in a community like ours that some of our
dear brothers and sisters in the Lord and even blood relatives could end up
in both places of worship and we dare not take more license then Scripture
allows in discussing our differences.
However, we do feel it necessary as a matter of conscience to bring to
light serious matters that deserve our attention. (4)
The matters brought forth in the following are not petty and should
not be overlooked or treated as trivial.
If the reader thinks himself (herself) above these matters, or that
they do not deserve attention, it may be best to stop here and either return
later, or discontinue altogether.
Great people of God have literally shed their blood and given their
lives for matters such as these and we ought not think because we live in the
time that we do that we are exempt from treating the subject matter and all
involved with high dignity. (5) Please read these statements
carefully now and again at the conclusion.
We cannot be cautious enough with our handling of these matters nor
our own hearts. We are sinners trying
to be faithful to a Holy God and should be mindful of this lest we become
arrogant in our positions. (6)
We must not let our desire for unity and fellowship outweigh our
requirement to be faithful to the Scripture.
Like Jude, we would love to discuss our common Salvation and most
certainly will in other forums, but we are compelled by Scripture to contend
earnestly for the faith. It is not our
judgment at this time that Calvary Chapel is trying to deceive anyone, or
that they are improperly motivated.
All external evidence points to the contrary. However, we do feel it necessary and
helpful to make those distinctions between us clear so as to be helpful in
our understanding and decisions where and how to worship. This is after all exactly what George
Bryson (of Calvary Chapel) is attempting in his book we will be quoting. We are doing the same here for our church
and our community. (7) Please make a concerted effort to
look up the corresponding verses listed for both positions. Scripture and not logic are to determine
where we stand. Admonition: We urgently ask that both church bodies
pray that we would honor God through our discussion and respect each other
insofar as we both attempt to adhere to the Scripture. It can be considered nothing less than
failure if we abandon Scripture for opinion. Introduction This paper is in no way intended to be
exhaustive, nor is it intended to discuss differences we may have in what
might be called non-essential matters.
Things such as Eschatology, Style of worship, etc will not be
mentioned at all. We will focus most,
if not all of our attention on Soteriology, or the Doctrine of
Salvation. Here at the outset we think
the reader will agree that this matter should be understood if any
should. And as far as we the sinners
are concerned, we would be well served to commit to understanding the beliefs
of the church we will attend. To make
sure that no slander or scoffing takes place we will try and represent as
fairly as possible the views of Calvary Chapel by using a book from a
prominent Pastor in that denomination (for lack of a better phrase –
apologies if it isn’t fitting). The
book is entitled The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting
by George Bryson. It is part
of the organization’s library and was given to a former member of our church
(SGBC) in an attempt at showing him the errors of his belief (Calvinistic)
and bringing him to an understanding of theirs. This book is available for free online in
its entirety for anyone who would like to double-check our references. I will say as a matter of personal
observation that the book does not offer alternatives, even verses, to the
Calvinistic view. For example, the
Doctrine of Total Depravity is refuted and
there is nothing but a void left in its place. I make this observation because I find it
suspect that you would say man is not
totally unable to choose God and then not clearly define what the extent of
the fall was. For it is the extent of
the fall that Total Depravity addresses.
Should we not understand how sinful we are if we’re to comprehend our
need for a Savior? Furthermore, and
this is where I (Pastor Johnnie) will reach my critical limit hopefully, it
appears that the motivation is to point to errors, and show that man has the
final say in Salvation is the subtext of the argument. It proves for very circular rhetoric. Chocolate is bad. A lot of people don’t eat chocolate. Therefore chocolate is bad. This is logical reasoning in its purest
sense, but it isn’t completely truthful.
Starting opposed to a system and then supporting your opposition is
not critiquing it is criticizing. Logic is used tremendously in this little
book. In the refutation of Total
Depravity there are many verses pertaining to rebirth (and we believe most
not to be exegeted correctly), but he does not quote a single verse that
pertains to the sinfulness of man as it is believed by CC. The only one verse (2 Thess
2:10) dealing with sin is used in a logical
illustration on how Calvinism is missing the boat. There isn’t a view on fallen man in this
book. I make these points to show that
the discussion will not be a point by point refutation of the book, because
the book doesn’t offer points. So we
will just make brief statements regarding the doctrines themselves. We at SGBC believe that when Scripture
speaks so frequently on a subject we dare not overlook it for something of
preference. We also do not desire to
refute the views of others without offering what we believe to be the Bible’s
teaching on that subject. If I point
out error and do not teach truth I am a critic and nothing more. In an attempt to keep this simple, we will
have an easy-to-follow format. Each
subject (one of the five points of Calvinism – or that particular point’s
Doctrine) will be handled like this: Doctrine/Point Defined – For Example: The Doctrine of Total Depravity states... SGBC’s Position – Man is... Scriptural Support
(or Calvinistic teaching) It should
be noted that in all of these points we (SGBC) are almost in text-book
fashion Calvinistic. So, you might
want to be aware of that as you follow along.
We are conservative Five Point Calvinists and make no apologies for
it. Also, we will handle the points in
the order of the book with the acronym TULIP.
I. Total Depravity The
Doctrine of Total Depravity states that man’s entire being (will included)
has been corrupted by the fall of Adam.
At the heart of this doctrine are the questions: How fallen is man? Is man apart from supernatural rebirth
(regeneration) able to choose God?
What has sin done to humanity with regard to his relationship to God? CC’s Position – Man has
free-will in the common use of that term – meaning he can choose good or
evil. CC believes that if God requires
men to repent, then men must necessarily have the ability to do so. In this view it follows that if man can
choose God, then faith precedes or comes before new birth. Man without God has the ability to exercise
faith. Bryson states, “... our Lord told
Nicodemus [that what] must happen, He was also saying that it ought
to happen; and what ought to happen can happen. Thus, rebirth is not
only caused by God it is commanded by God. God causes it to
happen when we meet the God ordained condition for it to happen. That is,
when we believe in or receive Jesus Christ. The main
verses used for this point in the book are John 1:12,13 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right
to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the
will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And John 3:7 7 "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be
born again.' SGBC’s Position – Bryson completely neglects the
exegesis of verse 13 of John 1 and places all of his emphasis for obvious
reasons on ‘received’ and ‘born... of God’.
Time will not permit a pointing out of the hermeneutical problem with
this, but one can sufficiently see in verse 13 that it is not ‘by the will of man.’ That someone is reborn. Also, making the stretch from ‘must’ to
‘ought’ is far from a safe interpretation of verse 7 of chapter 3. I feel obligated to point out the author
almost directly quotes the heretic Pelagius by saying that “what ought to
happen, can happen.” This is crass
logic, but it is not Biblical. The
Bible says we’re to be perfect (Matt 5:48) and it also says a Christian does
not sin (1 John 3:6). Both of these
verses have contexts and meaningful interpretations. But when the above logic is used, you get
the perfectionism of Methodism from these verses. This isn’t sound exposition of Scripture.
The Bible is crystal clear on the sinfulness of man and the extent of the
fall: Gen.2:16-17, Rom.5:12, Eph.2:1-3, Col.2:13, Gen.6:5,
Gen.8:21, Ecc.9:3, Jer.17:9, Mark.7:21-23, John.8:44, Eph.2:1-2,
2Tim.2:25-26, 1John.3:10, 1 John.5:19, Rom.6:20, Titus.3:3 The Bible is also clear on the Total Inability
of man to come to God in his corrupt state. Because of the significance we
will here list the verses with the references: John.6:44 "No one can come
to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the
last day. [Note: The word here translated draws is translated as drags
in other passages, such as John 21:11, Acts 21:30, and Acts 16:19.] John.6:65 And He said,
"Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has
been granted to him by My Father." Rom.3:9-12 What then? Are we
better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and
Greeks that they are all under sin. As it is written: "There is none
righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who
seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become
unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one." Rom.8:7-8 Because the carnal
mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor
indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please
God. 1Cor.2:14 But the natural man
does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to
him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. We believe that sin
has put the whole of man under the curse – ‘you (the whole man including his
will) shall surely die’. Rebirth is
the work of the Holy Spirit (John 3:3,8) and it precedes faith. Because one cannot see the kingdom without
rebirth, it must follow that we must be quickened (made alive) first, then we
can see and then repentance and faith Ephesians 2:8, 9. Finally we must ask the
question: what is at stake in a correct view of the sinfulness of man? The Calvinistic view leaves no ability in
man and therefore God is the initiator of Salvation. He then does not share His glory with man,
but deserves all credit for saving.
Calvary Chapel seems to be fighting for the autonomy of man and his
will. Man’s decision is sovereign vs.
Gods Regeneration through the Holy Spirit.
To this we take great exception. II. Unconditional
Election The Doctrine of Unconditional Election states that God chooses
some people for salvation according to the good pleasure of His will and not
in response to a foreseen act of faith on man’s part. At the heart of this doctrine are the
questions: Does God choose some for
Salvation, or do some choose Him? Does
He elect some to salvation based on their choice or His will? Is there a requirement on the part of
sinful man that makes him electable? CC’s Position – Personal note; I
find Bryson’s cavalier comments, “as silly as this sounds it is exactly what
Calvinistic Election leads to” very disconcerting. One must take seriously the claims of a
given position if he is to cogently refute it. The CC position is that God desires all men
(interpreted to mean every single person) to come to faith. The only verse used in a formative sense
for showing that salvation is available for all men is, “Come
unto Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you
rest”. (Matthew 11:27-30). The book
makes no more assertions except to show that Calvinists aren’t correct in
their interpretations of 1 Tim 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, and John 3:16. As far as those who perish he asserts that
they are not willing to come (Matt 22) which Calvinists don’t
argue. Bryson’s position is: While Calvinism is in search of the elect few who will
come to Christ regardless of any effort to reach them, our Lord appealed to
the troubled many (all sinners) and asked them to make a decision, or as Billy Graham might say, "take a step
of faith" (i.e., come to Me). SGBC’s
Position – The biggest problem with this one is that the
Calvinist – and I go further and say, the Biblical interpretation of the
above mentioned verses is not even stated.
He does not say what the Calvinist view or interpretation of these
verses is except for disagreeing with R.C. Sproul’s
conclusion that the ‘any’ in 2 Peter 3:9 refers to the ‘us’ just a few words
before it. Although it is easy to see
the context of 2 Peter 3 is to the ‘beloved’ vs. 1 & 8, it is strange
that Bryson (as well as most who hold his position) doesn’t offer a
sufficient alternative to our (and Sproul’s)
conclusion. There is an irony that the
flood is mentioned here and the question must be raised; how can God be
unwilling that any should perish (v. 9), but that the “world that then
existed perished” (v. 6).
Forgive the already criticized logic, but what conclusion do you come
to when you say that people who perish are not willing to come to God
and just sentences later say that God is not willing that any should
perish and mean not any single person?
Moreover the question must arise, if God desires every person to
repent what can be stronger than the desire of the Omnipotent that could keep
Him from obtaining what He desires?
There is but one answer to both questions in the CC view: Man’s will is stronger than God’s. We cannot hold this view. Nor do we see it in the Bible. 2 Peter 3:9 is simple to interpret. To the beloved Peter says, God will keep
His promise to us and not let us perish... He is a longsuffering God. This is altogether consistent with the rest
of Scripture and makes the most sense of the context. That this is teaching Universal Salvation
is erroneous to be sure. These two passages from Ephesians 1 are glaring examples of our
view on election: Eph.1:4-5 just as He
chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be
holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption
as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His
will, Eph.1:11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined
according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will Note that
it is in Christ we are chosen. This is
very significant because the CC (and others) view of election is that God
elects based on seeing our choosing Him.
The problem here is becomes apparent.
Paul says we are chosen “in Him.”
How can this be if we haven’t chosen to be “in Him” yet? Asked another way, are we or are we not “in
Him” at the time of our choosing? Also
it must be mentioned that again we here see the phrase according to the
counsel of His will. There is no mention, nor an inference at
all that this adoption in vs. 11 is in any way connected to a choice of
man’s. There are many verses to the
contrary: Rom 9:16, Rom 9:11, 2 Tim 1:9 We believe that God predestines His chosen
people (His Church), “before the foundation of the worlds” and that this
choice is “not of Him who wills... but of God who shows mercy.” (Rom
9:16). So then our ‘step of faith’ is
not the reason for our being born again, or elected, it is the fruit of
having been chosen before the foundations of the world (Eph 1) and
regenerated by the Holy Spirit (John 3).
There are no conditions we meet prior to God electing us. III. Limited Atonement (Particular
Redemption) Limited Atonement
states that Christ’s Atonement (Payment for sin or redeeming the lost) was
for the elect only and not for every person.
At the heart of this doctrine are the questions: For whom did Christ die? What does the death of Christ mean to the
lost? Was redemption provided for all,
or procured for the elect? CC’s Position - CC believes that Christ died
for everyone. By this they mean that
His death is a provision for every single person in the world. This is usually referred to as Universal
Atonement. Bryson: This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance,
that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners... I take this to mean that if you are a sinner, He came
to save you. If
Christ did not die for everyone, why would the writer to the Hebrews say of
Christ that He "suffered death, so that by the grace of God He might
taste death for everyone"?(Hebrews 2:10) Should
this read "taste death for everyone who is Elect"? Drawing
his listener's attention to the person of Jesus Christ, John the Baptist
said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world"
(John 1:29). A
Calvinist reading of this verse could be "Behold! The Lamb of God who
takes away the sin of the elect of the world." So, it is clear
then, that CC holds to Universal Redemption.
Christ death was for every person.
This is consistent with the free-will theology above. Christ died for
all, all men can choose and so be saved according to their own will. SGBC Position – It should be pointed out here that all Christians
limit the Atonement. It is simply a
matter of who does the limiting. CC
puts this ability to limit the atonement in the hands (will) of man. In other words, we ask the question: When
someone rejects Christ and dies in their sin, was the atonement for
them? Answers vary here. Some say ‘no’ it was not for those who
reject it. Then it follows that these
lost limit the atonement to people other than themselves. However, others would say that Christ did
in fact die for those who would reject Him.
We Calvinists ask if He died for them what does their rejection say
about the effectiveness of His death?
We are now venturing into logic and we needn’t do this. One final note on CC (and all
non-Calvinist) positions. The verses
we are about to look at are in the same Bible as those used for the other
positions. Often those who take the
same view as CC say, ‘these verses are obvious.’ We say we must ‘divide’ the Word and ‘study’
to show ourselves approved. It is
careless to hold a view that is ‘obvious’ and neglect the deep study of it
from Scripture. Especially when the
Church historically holds a view other than your own. It is now that we define the Calvinistic
(SGBC) position from Scripture. The
last quote from Bryson above was riddled with logic and we dare not use our
reason in these matters. Scripture
should be the final authority and it speaks volumes on this subject. From the following verses ask the question:
for whom did Christ die? And, was His
death for everyone? Following this, it will be pointed out that
Jesus ‘actually saves’. This is
important because this means He doesn’t provide Salvation in a buffet style
for anyone who would or would not like.
However, it means Salvation is ‘invitation only’ and He actually saves
the elect of God. This makes His death
100% effective. We do say that His
death could have saved everyone,
but it actually saves some. Christ
died for... Matthew 20:28 (for many), Matthew 26:28 (many), John
10:11 (His Sheep), John 11,50-53
(children of God), Ephesians 5:25-27 (His Church), Hebrews 9:15 (the called) Christ
did not die for... John 10:26 "But you do not believe,
because you are not of My sheep,” John 8:43-44 "Why do you not understand
My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 "You are of
your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was
a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there
is no truth in him. “ Rom 9:13-16 13
As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."14 What shall we say then? Is there
unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, "I
will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on
whomever I will have compassion."16 So
then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows
mercy. Jesus
actually saves. (These verses talk
about an actual Salvation, not a potential salvation) Matthew 1:21; Luke
19:10; Acts 5:31; Romans 3:24-25; Romans 5:8-9; Romans 5:10; 1 Corinthians
1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 1:3-4; Galatians
3:13; Ephesians 1:3-4; Ephesians 2:15-16; Ephesians 5:25-26; Philippians
1:29; Colossians 1:13-14; Colossians 1:21-22; 1 Timothy 1:15; Titus 2:14;
Titus 3:5-6; Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 13:12; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 Peter
3:18; 1 John 1:7 We believe that Christ gave Himself for His Church. His Sheep (who are obviously not every
person) follow Him. We find the
doctrine of Universal Atonement unbiblical.
It is an affront to God to say Christ died for someone who would
reject Him. If I may be logical (this
is admittedly my opinion), it is possible in the Universal scheme that no one
would choose Christ. It is possible
that God would not elect (as they see it) anyone based on their free-will
because they could have all not chosen Him.
If this is so, then it is hypothetically possible (though not
probable) that Christ died for nothing.
It’s as though with a sigh of relief that we say, “Whew! I’m sure glad
someone chose Christ. Otherwise He
would have died for nothing.” Is this
a trite statement? Follow the reason
through. This is very inconsistent
with the Bible. Christ was the Lamb
slain when? (Revelation 13:8). We were
chosen when? (Ephesians 1:4). He chose
a flock and He saves that flock. And
this before the foundation of the world and apart from any choice on our
behalf. To His glory. IV. Irresistible Grace The doctrine of
Irresistible Grace states that the general call to repentance which is external
can and is often or usually rejected.
However, it teaches also that there is an inward effective call to the
elect of God which cannot be rejected.
This Effectual Call is the work of the Holy Spirit and as such is
invincible. It is this grace that never
fails. It cannot be hindered by
man. It is Sovereign Grace. CC’s Position – Believing that the final
decision of whether or not we choose Christ belongs to man, it is the natural
progression to believe he has the power to resist God. He can choose or not choose. Again read the words and specifically the logic of Bryson: Can Grace Be Resisted? The question before
us however, is this: can grace be resisted and is grace ever resisted insofar
as salvation is concerned? The only scriptural answer is yes.
And just as a gift voluntarily received is no less a gift, so a gift
"willfully refused" is no less a gift. The nature of the offer
(i.e., free) is not affected by the intended recipient's response. We have already read
where Paul said that certain people perish because they refuse
to love the Truth. If we are to take Calvinism seriously, we must
conclude that this is an "involuntary refusal." Can there be such a
thing? Some Calvinists would contend that the unregenerate can choose evil,
but evil only. But this is like saying the blind man can only choose not to
see. Some choice. In fact, the blind do not choose not to see, they have no
choice in the matter. So the unregenerate according to Calvinism does not
really choose to refuse, he simply does the only thing he can - refuse.
The belief simply
stated is that refusal or acceptance is up to man. Bryson: The
difference between the saved and the lost is the difference between Faith and
Unbelief. The difference between those merely convicted by the Holy Spirit,
and those who yield to the Spirit when they are drawn, is the difference
between the willing and the unwilling. Thus, the 4th point of Calvinism
misses the whole point. SGBC Position – We do not agree that man can
choose either good or evil in His unregenerate state. In the excerpt above, Bryson uses logic to come to the conclusion that a
physically blind man cannot choose to see (and we agree). We may even make the same analogy to point
out how depraved a man is. However,
what would happen if this logic is carried out? Did Jesus not heal the blind by His own
choice for the glory of the Father?
Could those whom Jesus healed decide to be or stay blind? I do not pose this as a question for
answer; I pose it to note that Bryson’s analogy is a poor one for this
discussion and is inconsistent with the whole of his book. Earlier in his book he states that we
should be careful to use the physical things like death to conclude things
regarding the spiritual realm. He
says, “Although there is a valid analogy between spiritual birth
and between spiritual death and physical death, the Calvinist goes too far in
comparing them.” Yet, here he does
just that to prove his own point. In
other words when logic can be used to prove his point, he uses it liberally,
but Calvinists carry things too far when they use it. We wholeheartedly
agree that man perishes because he is unwilling to believe. We also agree that it is his decision to
remain in darkness. But where we most
certainly disagree is that he in this state is not neutral, but dead. And that when the Holy Spirit makes him
alive, that is not his choice, but God’s alone. There is a simple
question here that goes beyond man’s free-will. How strong is omnipotent? When the Holy Spirit (God) works, who can
stop Him? I will grant to all
non-Calvinists that this Doctrine is necessary if you believe the
others. It is precisely this that
makes our system cohesive. For one
cannot at the same time say that a person is drawn and say he chooses
entirely of his own volition. Bryson
tries to undo this by exegesis of the word draw vs. drag being
taken from the original language. I
contend that the interpretation of the word he comes up with (which we don’t
agree is the correct one) is inconsistent with his free-will teaching. Either God is free, omnipotent, chooses and
draws (drags), or man is free, autonomous and chooses of his own will without
intervention or regeneration. I find
it very disturbing that the whole of the argument by non-Calvinists is a
defense of the will of man over and against the call and regeneration of
God. There is a shout of “Man can
refuse” and a whisper of “the Holy Spirit helps in drawing men.” This should be a warning sign, but
apparently it is not. But enough logic,
what saith the Scriptures? And as
before, ask the question if the Spirit of God does something as an act of omnipotence, who can challenge
Him? Can we undo what He does? The Spirit
Saves We believe that
when the Holy Spirit draws, the lost sheep (of Christ, in Him before the
foundations of the world) come to Him.
And that if the Father, through the work of the Spirit draws, our mere
will is not enough to stop Him. Forgive
the rare show of emotion, but who do we
think we are? V. Perseverance of the Saints This Doctrine
states that the elect are not only saved by God, but kept by Him. Although many hold this view Calvinism
doesn’t hold it in the simplistic “once saved always saved sense,” But that
the whole scope of Salvation from beginning to end is wrought by God. And as such there is assurance found in Him
and obedience to His word and not in a decision
on the part of the believer. Believers
who are chosen, called, born again, saved, sanctified by the Spirit are
ultimately glorified. CC’s Position – Calvary Chapel does not deny
Eternal Security. Meaning they believe
that once a believer is saved that are always saved. However in the CC position this is not a
result of the work of the Spirit it is a result of our decision. Bryson: We Ought to Persevere Perhaps by defining
perseverance - at least as it is worked out behaviorally - as faithfully
following Christ, or being obedient to God's Word, or walking in the light;
we can see that Perseverance is what ought to be true for every
Christian. This is what believers are encouraged to do - and warned about
failing to do - precisely because we have a tendency or inclination to not do
it. Obviously, the things
they are told to add, including perseverance, are not necessarily added to
the life of the true believer. To say that
perseverance is what we will do because we are true believers
is to radically redefine the meaning of perseverance. Instead we need to see
perseverance as what we ought to do because we are true
believers. Again as before we
see this word ought. It’s the belief of CC that what we ought to
do we can. In another place Bryson
says the believer without exhortation is not inclined to persevere. As with the other Doctrines it is not a
matter of Him who saves or keeps but of him who wills. We do not agree. SGBC Position – First it should be noted that Bryson Argues
against the Arminian view (Salvation can be lost) view as well as the
Calvinistic view on this point. There
is one shining inconsistency that must be pointed out here before we go
further. There is no answer offered in
his book to the dilemma of what happens when someone does not persevere in
his view. There is refutation of the
Calvinist answer – They were not ever saved, but never an alternative left in
its place. It is plain that what is
being attempted is a union of Scripture on the subject of perseverance and
man’s choice to persevere or do what he “ought” Bryson again uses logic to point that if
Scripture admonishes man to persevere, then he must necessarily be able to do
it. He further makes the argument that
perseverance, is something you add to your faith (2 Peter
1:4-8). This seems inconsistent with
the whole idea of submitting to the Spirit of God and letting Him have His
way with us (Walking in the Spirit and bearing fruit – Galatians). It is us piling on the faith we produced to
be saved other virtues of our own in order to grow in maturity and
consequently persevere. He says the
Calvinistic view is reduced to “inevitability” and therefore offers no
assurance. This is going to be a quite condemning
statement, so I am saying before it that it deserves careful attention and
should be looked into further by the reader so as not to hear/read my
comments as critical, but as an accurate representation of Bryson and his
book. In the section labeled as a
refutation of the Calvinistic view of Perseverance, Bryson does not make one
single comment regarding the work of God in perseverance. There isn’t one thing in the whole section
to which God can be given credit and subsequently glorified. Perseverance in this little book rests
solely on man’s willingness to submit to the exhortation from Scripture to do
so. I welcome a rebuttal here and will quickly
delete these comments from this paper if I’m shown to be mistaken. But I have read this section and come to
the conclusion that Bryson teaches that ‘truly saved’ people persevere
because they want to and that
nothing Bryson has written would lend to any help from above in the matter. Why does Scripture exhort us to persevere
if is it “inevitable” for us not to?
Maybe some rhetorical questions would point to the fallacy in this
line of thinking. Why did God not just
teleport His people out of So what then is
perseverance from the Calvinistic perspective? As the Westminster Confession states: They, whom God hath accepted in his
Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally
nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere
therein to the end, and be eternally saved. (XVII.1) It is through faith that the believer
perseveres (Heb 3:6, 6:11, 10:35-39). The
keeping power of God in contradistinction to the will-power of man and/or his
ability to heed the exhortations of Scripture is the object of this
faith. It is the believer’s hope in
the promise of God that is the means of his perseverance. It is not a relaxed or hapless floating
that causes us to persevere. It is not
a confidence in our ‘decision’ or ‘profession’ in which we rest. Otherwise the oft stated criticism against
this view would be valid. Namely that
we can live how we desire because we made some idle profession and were
sincere. This would be Decisional
Regeneration in a pure sense and we reject this notion as unbiblical. Perseverance on our part is the supernatural
effect of preservation on His part.
Jay Wetger puts it this way: The
majesty and immutability of God’s promises secure the believer’s perseverance
and everything necessary for eternal life. These magnificent promises
of God nourish our faith, affection, love and trust in Christ.
Everything that is necessary for godliness and salvation is reckoned to be
included among the supernatural gifts of God.
We agree with CC in the sense that all men who are saved will not lose
that salvation. We do however ask the
reader to read the following Scriptures for themselves. We believe the ‘P’ in TULIP hinges on the
other four points. When God does His
work of salvation, gives us assurance, grants us faith... the final and total
consummation of redemption is the result.
The product of God’s work is a saint who by faith works out his gift
of salvation, by becoming holy, producing fruit, with fear and
trembling. We thank the Father that He
answers the Son’s following prayer: "Now I am no longer in the world, but
these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your
name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. "While I was with them in the world, I
kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them
is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.”
(John 17:11-12) Isaiah 43:1-3; Isaiah
54:10; Jeremiah 32:40; Matthew 18:12-14; John 3:16; John 3:36; John 5:24;
John 6:35-40; John 6:47; John 10:27-30; John 17:11-12; John 17:15; Romans
5:8-10; Romans 8:1; Romans 8:35-39; 1 Corinthians 1:7-9; 1 Corinthians 10:13;
2 Corinthians 4:14; 2 Corinthians 4:17; Ephesians 1:5; Ephesians 1:13-14;
Ephesians 4:30; Colossians 3:3-4; 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24; 2 Timothy 4:18;
Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 10:14; Hebrews 12:28; 1 Peter 1:3-5; 1
John 2:19; 1 John 2:25; 1 John 5:4; 1 John 5:11-13; 1 John 5:20; Jude 1:1;
Jude 1:24-25. Conclusion I’ll make a judgment here, but it is not
intended in a derogatory sense. It is
intended to bring clarity to this discussion.
The judgment is this: Although
Bryson as a representative of Calvary Chapel claims no allegiance to the
teachings of Arminianism, he consistently draws conclusions in his book that
put him directly in that camp. I am
not saying this to vilify him or CC in any way. I say it to point out where we stand in the
debate. If I say man is unable to choose God apart
from supernatural rebirth, God chooses man solely according to His good
pleasure and on no basis of any foreseen event, that Christ died for a
certain chosen number of people, that when the Holy Spirit regenerates
someone – they come to faith, and that God who starts the process completes
it in perseverance (Calvinism) then whether I’m fond of being labeled a
Calvinist or not, I am one. Likewise,
this book (Bryson’s) is as Arminian as any work with that label. There’s a tendency to think that when a
label is given that we can no longer call ourselves ‘Biblical’. I appreciate not wanting to be attached or
deemed a follower of men. We
Calvinists feel much the same way. We
often qualify this by saying we follow Calvin inasmuch as he follows
Scripture. We do not however deny our
roots in history as though we’ve somehow come to a brighter understanding of
truth than the great godly men of old. Bryson makes statements in his book that
suggest him as a scoffer of Calvinism and not a serious student of it. Statements like “if we are to take Calvinism seriously” and “As silly as this sounds it is exactly what Calvinistic Election leads
to” seem to suggest he is not searching for truth, but rather looking for
answers to the question ‘how does this prove Calvinism wrong?’ He will take a quote, for example from
Spurgeon (who was very much a Calvinist), and try to construe it to undermine
Calvinism. Spurgeon as well as any
Calvinist who has done diligence has viable answers to the questions raised
in the book. But the tone of it is not
such that the author wants to hear those answers. I have no doubt if George Bryson is like
the numerous other CC Pastors I’ve met, that he would be pleasant and have a
demeanor very becoming of a faithful minister. I have had this experience with every CC
minister I’ve ever met. I would even
go further to say that we could have a very courteous discussion on these
matters. The challenge as I have
learned is that in writing things take a different tone. The tone of this book is that of someone
having come to conclusions and without entertaining the possibility of
personal error, attempting to refute a centuries old system of Doctrine. Doctrine that can more than adequately be
drawn from the Bible if there is a desire to hear it and not undo it. And by way of conjecture a Doctrine that
had the author of the book in question been born a few hundred years earlier
would have likely held as his own. Please review the opening statements /
questions for the sake of a clear conscience.
Pray with me that we grow in grace and in knowledge together.
Forgive any malicious undertones, for I assure the reader to the best
this sinner is able, I am simply attempting to “hold fast” (2 Tim 1:13) to
the words of the Bible. We believe that all of Salvation is of the
Lord and without cooperation on our part.
We are dead and unable, He makes us alive and willing. In our sin we have nothing to offer (not
even faith), He chooses us for no reason other than His will and
pleasure. We are not able to limit the
Atonement of Christ by our choices, He applies an actual redemption to those
He chose from the foundation of the world.
Though we are dead and unable to reach to God, He works invincibly to
change our hearts and make us new creatures.
Though our sin would put us in the pit, He keeps by His power those
whom He’s chosen. And for this He gets
all Praise, Honor and Glory. He
needn’t share an ounce with man because of some intrinsic ability that may
have somehow been missed by the curse of sin. Calvinists do not argue some mechanistic
humanity. Adam had free-will and he
sinned. We are all cursed because of
that and not in need of reformation from within ourselves, but regeneration
from the Holy Spirit. And only He can
take a heart of Stone and make it flesh. Philippians 2:13 “for
it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” -
Amen
|